marcinmoka Posted June 16, 2007 Report Posted June 16, 2007 I applaud the new French foreign minister and his resolve in calling a spade a spade, and actually calling on other G8 nations to finally stand up for the displaced of Darfur. While the current military enforced air corridor (in Chad) is still relatively small, it is better than just years of inaction and insincere vocal condemnations and monstrous passivity. Quote " Influence is far more powerful than control"
marcinmoka Posted June 17, 2007 Author Report Posted June 17, 2007 The real question here: when is the use of military force justified? Should it be used in the case of humanitarian intervention, despite there being absolutely no direct threat to ourselves? Despite the slippery slope this may create, I do think so, though many would (sadly) disagree! Quote " Influence is far more powerful than control"
jbg Posted June 17, 2007 Report Posted June 17, 2007 I applaud the new French foreign minister and his resolve in calling a spade a spade....For France that's very refreshing. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
BC_chick Posted June 17, 2007 Report Posted June 17, 2007 The real question here: when is the use of military force justified?Should it be used in the case of humanitarian intervention, despite there being absolutely no direct threat to ourselves? Despite the slippery slope this may create, I do think so, though many would (sadly) disagree! I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Military intervention is necessary when: 1) there is an direct threat to one's country. 2) there is a direct existential threat to a people in this world. Darfur should have qualified under the second criteria ages ago. Quote It's kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. Other than that, it's fine." Bill Nye on Alberta Oil Sands
ScottSA Posted June 17, 2007 Report Posted June 17, 2007 The real question here: when is the use of military force justified? Should it be used in the case of humanitarian intervention, despite there being absolutely no direct threat to ourselves? Despite the slippery slope this may create, I do think so, though many would (sadly) disagree! I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Military intervention is necessary when: 1) there is an direct threat to one's country. 2) there is a direct existential threat to a people in this world. Darfur should have qualified under the second criteria ages ago. So you must applaude the invasion of Poland, France, and the USSR by Germany. Quote
marcinmoka Posted June 17, 2007 Author Report Posted June 17, 2007 So you must applaude the invasion of Poland, France, and the USSR by Germany ??????? Quote " Influence is far more powerful than control"
ScottSA Posted June 17, 2007 Report Posted June 17, 2007 So you must applaude the invasion of Poland, France, and the USSR by Germany ??????? All of those invasions involved an existential threat to the German people, according to the definitions supplied by Hitler as early as 1924. Hence the quest for leibenstrau. That makes those invasions "required" under BC Chick's criteria. Quote
BC_chick Posted June 17, 2007 Report Posted June 17, 2007 All of those invasions involved an existential threat to the German people, according to the definitions supplied by Hitler as early as 1924. Hence the quest for leibenstrau. That makes those invasions "required" under BC Chick's criteria. I highlighted the key flaw in the logic of your statement. Quote It's kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. Other than that, it's fine." Bill Nye on Alberta Oil Sands
scribblet Posted June 18, 2007 Report Posted June 18, 2007 Its majority muslim they have said they don't want us there, so why would we again get involved with Muslims when in every other thread the west is bashed for being involved. (with muslim countries) Quote Hey Ho - Ontario Liberals Have to Go - Fight Wynne - save our province
capricorn Posted June 18, 2007 Report Posted June 18, 2007 Our forces are stretched to the limit with the Afghan mission. Rotation of some 2,500 soldiers occurs every six months. We're committed there until Feb. 09. Darfur definitely fits the criteria for our involvement and I'm in full agreement. Honestly though, how much can we expect from our military? Increasingly, Canadians are displeased with our involvement in Afghanistan. How would the population react to our becoming involved in another conflict, no matter how worthy the cause? Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
ScottSA Posted June 18, 2007 Report Posted June 18, 2007 All of those invasions involved an existential threat to the German people, according to the definitions supplied by Hitler as early as 1924. Hence the quest for leibenstrau. That makes those invasions "required" under BC Chick's criteria. I highlighted the key flaw in the logic of your statement. The key flaw in mine is the same key flaw in yours. Someone has to define 'existential' threat. To Islam, an existential threat is anything that doesn't further it. To Cair or Cair-can, that means virtually all anti-terrorism measures which happen to trod on their toes, and to a hard-core Islamist, it's the the very existence of the west. Unfortunately you make the same mistake as do-gooders have made for centuries...they, and you, assume that all other folks see the world through the same eyes as you do, and that your definition of good is universal. It's not. Quote
jbg Posted June 18, 2007 Report Posted June 18, 2007 So you must applaude the invasion of Poland, France, and the USSR by Germany ??????? All of those invasions involved an existential threat to the German people, according to the definitions supplied by Hitler as early as 1924. Hence the quest for leibenstrau. That makes those invasions "required" under BC Chick's criteria. No, BC_Chick would like those invasions because the invading end was totalitarian and the victims were (some of them relatively) free countries. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.